The link to the San Antonio missions Web site revealing that "The cost to apply is a steep $650,000," set me thinking about what other information could be found about the cost of applying for World Heritage Inscription - and also about what practices exist around who pays for it etc etc.

As a start I put forward the following

Wearmouth-Jarrow.
The failed UK bid for 2012. This nomination had a very extended and chequered history with a decision a couple of years earlier to delay the bid and bring in consultants to prepare a new set of Management Plans and Nomination File. This report shows that an eye-watering £811000 was spent on this failed bid!!
http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/world-heritage-bid-cost-811-000-442443.html
The costs came mainly from Quangos charged with regenerating the area plus local government.. What a waste!!

Lake District
UK has already tried once to get this site inscribed in the days before "Cultural Landscapes" were included. There will also have been an extended process to keep the bid running during the intervening years and then for getting on to UK's new T List. None of this will have been included in the latest figure provided on the bid's Web site which only covers the "official" 3 Years of the bid process - a budget of just under £400000. And if you believe it will be as low as that then you must also believe in Fairies! http://www.lakeswhs.co.uk/faqs14.html

General UK Bid Costs
A Consultancy report commissioned by the UK Dept of Culture in 2007 contained a detailed breakdown of the likely general costs of preparing a bid (as well as, separately, the costs of maintaining a WH Site). This reached a figure at 2007 prices of c£500000. See
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.culture.gov.uk/images/publicat ions/whconsultation_engversion.pdf . See page 21.

Can any Forum members find history of the cost of bids in other countries? We know of course that some Chinese bids have cost astronomical sums - and even those need to be viewed with caution given the opaqueness of Chinese accounting systems!

I've been trying to find the costs for the nomination of the Teylers Museum in Haarlem, which will be up for 2013. But have not found anything.

I would not view the "entire" cost as a waste. Improved management plans, expanded knowledge and understanding of the site provided to the public, clear boundaries and buffer zones, multi-lingual signage, educational materials, investment in on-site facilities, restoration, etc.

No argue about the exorbitant price though. While I think the costs are not all a waste, it should not be so expensive.

I wonder how much of the cost is spent on the dossier and paying experts on the site?

In the case of the UK at least I don't believe the costs include any "physical" on-site elements - signage, footpaths, toilets, restoration etc etc. They are all what I would call "process" related, bureaucratic and administrative, involved in meeting UNESCO/ICOMOS/IUCN's ever increasingly detailed requirements in making a "bid". Or at least, what they are perceived to be - I agree that sometimes there may be an element of "top show" to try to cover up weak cases - but as we have seen there is also a legitimate feeling that the ICOMOS/IUCN inspector can come up with such nit-picking aspects that one has to try at least to cover every possible issue, leading to ever lengthening nomination Files and Management Plans. The Consultancy report referred to above breaks down the estimated costs - just having a bid manager and team for 3 years plus some (usually expensive!!!) consultants, graphic artists for Nomination file layout etc etc is soon going to add up!

There are clearly problems of definition when making comparisons across countries and I think those enormous Chinese figures we have come across include the costs of e.g moving the odd million people outside the boundaries and building apartments for them!!

No, the cost of even a failed bid isn't "all" wasted - but an ever increasing amount of it seems to go on aspects which are not directly related to site preservation.

I noticed that Hubert's recent post about the Erzberg Iron trail nomination being put on hold whilst mining continued included a link with this comment about the expected cost of applying ( http://www.kleinezeitung.at/steiermark/leoben/eisenerz/2715886/welterbe-plaene-fuer-e rzberg-werden-begraben.story )

"Grundlage einer Bewerbung ist eine Vergleichsstudie (Kosten: rund 30.000 Euro). Für die Einreichung sind weitere 20.000 Euro fällig. Außerdem müssen die Welterbe-Titelanwärter einen Managementplan erstellen. Ein solcher kostet gut und gerne 50.000 Euro."

So, only 100,000 Euro (30k comparison study, 20k filing the Nomination, 50k+ for management plan).
Either they are doing it a lot more cost effectively than the UK and US sites whose costs are mentioned above - or some things are being missed out!!

I think the Austrians underestimate the costs of the nomination.
Hamburg is planning a nomination for the Chilehaus and has proposed two sites for the new German T-List. They estimate about 350,000 Euros for one nomination - for mapping, photography and scientific documentation. I believe that these sum is more likely.

http://www.ndr.de/regional/hamburg/weltkulturerbe115.html

I once read that Regensburg had spent 600,000 Euros, but I can't find the link anymore.
Probably the costs for the documentation of a historic city centre are higher than for a single building.

But this can be a good investment, not only because of the increase in tourism. From 2009 to 2014, Germany is supporting the restauration and preservation of World Heritage Sites with 220 million Euros in total.

http://www.unesco.de/3285.html
http://www.welterbeprogramm.de/cln_033/nn_614178/INUW/DE/Programm/programm__node.html ?__nnn=true